R. v. Roukema
The Court held there was no reversible error: the videotaped experiment and Crown's use did not require a limiting instruction; the respondent's factum adequately addressed submissions about Taylor's prior assault and alleged confession; Crown permissibly relied on after-the-fact conduct to argue intent despite...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C30486
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Frederick Roukema
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 February 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (appeal From Conviction)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Jury Instructions, Videotape/experiment Evidence, After the Fact Conduct, Closing Address/prosecution Comments, Intent and Intoxication
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Frederick Roukema
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (appeal From Conviction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a limiting instruction was required for the videotaped experiment evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on Taylor's prior assault and alleged confession
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to instruct regarding the appellant's after-the-fact conduct and its use to infer intent despite intoxication
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held there was no reversible error: the videotaped experiment and Crown's use did not require a limiting instruction; the respondent's factum adequately addressed submissions about Taylor's prior assault and alleged confession; Crown permissibly relied on after-the-fact conduct to argue intent despite intoxication; and although prosecutors should avoid personal opinion, the remarks here were not prejudicial and did not undermine fairness. Appeal dismissed and conviction upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Roukema Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2002-02-18 Docket numbers C30486 Judges McMurtry, Roy; Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Abella, Rosalie Silberman Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20020218 DOCKET: C30486 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and– FREDERICK ROUKEMA (Appellant) BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., CATZMAN and ABELLA JJ.A. COUNSEL: Paul Burstein, for the appellant Christine Bartlett-Hughes, for the respondent HEARD: February 13, 2002 RELEASED ORALLY: February 13, 2002 On appeal from the conviction imposed by Justice Douglas J.A. Rutherford dated June 23, 1998. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant first submitted that, having regard to the differing circumstances between the experiment and the death of the victim, the videotaped experiment required the trial judge to give a limiting instruction to the jury. In our view, there was nothing inappropriate about the depiction in the videotape or in the use made of it by the Crown in his address to the jury that required such a limiting instruction. [2] Counsel for the appellant relied on the submissions in his factum regarding the failure to instruct the jury on Taylor’s assault of the victim on an earlier occasion and refusal to instruct the jury on Taylor’s alleged confession to a Salvation Army worker. He did not address oral argument on these submissions. We accept the written submissions in the respondent’s factum as a complete answer to these points, and we need not address them further. [3] The appellant submitted that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the appellant’s after the fact conduct. In our view, Crown counsel was entitled to use the conduct in question in relation to the appellant’s ability to form the necessary intent notwithstanding his consumption of alcohol, and Crown counsel’s comments to the jury on this subject were not inappropriate. [4] Finally, the appellant submitted that the Crown’s closing address to the jury improperly contained expressions of personal opinion that denigrated the position of the defence. The respondent concedes, and we agree, that Crown counsel at trial should not express personal opinions about the evidence, but we also agree with the respondent’s submission that the comments in question did not undermine the fairness of the trial. [5] The appeal is dismissed. Signed: “R.R. McMurtry C.J.O.” “M.A. Catzman J.A.” “R.S. Abella J.A.”